Should I use rel=canonical on similar product pages.
-
I'm thinking of using rel=canonical for similar products on my site.
Say I'm selling pens and they are al very similar. I.e. a big pen in blue, a pack of 5 blue bic pens, a pack of 10, 50, 100 etc. should I rel=canonical them all to the best seller as its almost impossible to make the pages unique. (I realise the best I realise these should be attributes and not products but I'm sure you get my point)
It seems sensible to have one master canonical page for bic pens on a site that has a great description video content and good images plus linked articles etc rather than loads of duplicate looking pages.
love to hear thoughts from the Moz community.
-
There's no perfect solution, but Google's advice is to use rel=prev/next. This looks like pretty classic pagination. Rel-canonical is a stronger signal, but it's generally going to keep pages 2+ from ranking.
-
Dr. Pete,
I have a internal debate going and I was hoping you might be a tie breaker on rel=canonical vs noindex given these paginated pages and might be a good use case for others:
https://www.newhomesource.com/communityresults/market-269/citynamefilter-cedar-park
https://www.newhomesource.com/communityresults/market-269/citynamefilter-cedar-park/page-2
The individual list items are unique, but clearly want to rank for essentially the exact same terms. Page titles, metas, copy about cit is the same. Just the list elements are different, but not a 12 pack of pens, 24 pack etc. Is this tricky or clear?
-
Thank you Sir. I think we reached the same conclusion.
By the way, the it was a just a simple example of the page hierarchy - we're not doing Horror Books
-
I haven't heard any SEO recommendations or benefits regarding rel="contents". Rel=prev/next has mixed results, but I'd generally only use it for its specific use case of paginated content.
I guess you could treat V2 as "pages" within V1. If you did that, what you'd need to do is treat the main page as a "View All" page and link to it from each author page. I'm not sure if that's the best approach, but it's more or less Google-approved.
If the site has decent authority and we're only talking 100s of pages, I might let them all live in the index and see what happens. Let Google sort it out, and then decide if you're ok with the outcome. If the site is low authority and/or we're talking 1000s of pages, I might be more cautious.
It's hard to speak in generalities - it depends a lot on the quality of the site and nature of the pages, including how much that content is available/duplicated across the web. One problem here is that author pages with lists of books probably exist on many sites, so you have to differentiate yourself.
-
Good. Same page
I was looking in to rel=contents and those variations before, but I can't quite decide whether this is worth the effort or not.
e.g. There's a huge list of resources on a single page, segmented in to categories. The page is HUGE and takes ages to load, so I've been creating new pages for each segment and optimising those pages independently, but there is some common content with the primary page.
V1: Horror Novels page has a section for each author, each section lists all novels by that author.
V2: Each Author has a page which lists novels by that author, but links back to the Horror Novels page which is essentially an index of the Author pages. Would you also
Would you use rel=contents, rel=prev/next or a different approach in this case? From what I've read so far, there doesn't seem any "SEO value" in linking that way.
I guess we're trying to improve the UX through faster load times and segmenting the information in smaller chunks, but also presenting a number of pages to Google as a body of content rather than a single page without causing issues with duplicate or similar content - we just need to make sure that we're optimising it in the right way, of course.
-
I would Meta Noindex an "email this page" template. It has no value for SERPs, it's generally at the end of a path, and no one is going to link to it. Just keep it out of the index altogether.
-
Thanks Pete
So, for a more specific example, if an eCommerce store has an "email this product" page for each product (Magento seems to love doing this and creates a duplicate of the same email page for every product), would you recommend a canonical link for each of those pages to the main Contact page or canonically linking each page to each related product page?
From setup, I'd consider NoIndex on all of those pages anyway, but it's a bit late for that once a site has been live for years.
The email pages are obviously related to the product page, but the content there isn't anywhere near identical.
Or maybe there's a "more appropriate solution" that you alluded to?
-
To clarify, that's the official stance - rel=canonical should only be used on true duplicates (basically, URL variants of the same page). In practice, rel=canonical works perfectly well on near-duplicates, and sometimes even on wildly different pages, but the more different you get, the more caution you should exercise. If the pages are wildly different, it's likely there are more appropriate solutions.
-
Hey Pete
Can you explain, "you can't use rel=canonical on pages that aren't 100% duplicates" a little further please?
Do you mean that only duplicate pages should be canonicalised? Identical pages in two different sub-directories is fine, but two similar pages is not?
-
So, here's the problem - if you follow the official uses of our options, then there is no answer. You can't have thin content or Google will slap you with Panda (or, at the very least, devalue your rankings, you can't use rel=canonical on pages that aren't 100% duplicates, and you're not supposed to (according to Google) just NOINDEX content. The official advice is: "Let us sort it out, but if we don't sort it out, we'll smack you down."
I don't mean that to be critical of your comment, but I'm very frustrated with the official party line from Google. Practically speaking, I've found index control to be extremely effective even before Panda, and critical for big sites post-Panda. Sometimes, that means embracing imperfect solutions. The right tool for any situation can be complex (and it may be a combination of tools), but rel=canonical is powerful and often effective, in my experience.
-
It seems to me that for most ecommerce sites (myself included) that canonical is not the answer. If you have to many near identical products on your site it may be better to re evaluate what you have stocking and if you must stock them then the way forward is to make one page that properly explains them and allows purchase rather than many.
The only uses I can see for canonical is to consolidate old blogs and articles on similar topics. Using it to tidy an ecommerce site seems to be a misuse of the tool.
-
This can get tricky when you dive into the details, but I general agree with Takeshi and EGOL - consolidate or canonicalize. If the products are different brands/versions of a similar item, it's a bit trickier, but these variations do have a way of spinning out of control. In 2013, I think the down side of your index running wild is a lot higher than the up side of ranking for a couple more long-tail terms. It does depend a lot on your traffic, business model, etc., though. I'm not sure any of us can adequately advise you in the scope of a Q&A.
-
Also I forgot to mention that in this way you also don't have to worry about creating tons of different product descriptions because you will put one description for, let's say, 6 different products.
the way we built it, allow us to have just product group pages are reachable; the products pages are indexed and crawled and they have to be there otherwise the whole system wouldn't work, but no optimization is done on them and customers can't see it.
-
Hello there,
I manage an e-commerce site and because we have similar products and issues with duplicate content we have implemented product groups pages with a drop-down menu' listing the different options for a particular product and then we have used the rel="canonical" with the different product pages. In this way we have solved this issue and it works very well.
If you do implement it, make sure every passage is done correctly otherwise, as Matt Cutts says, you will have an headache trying to sort it out.
Hope it helps
-
Those pen offers are very very similar. Identical product descriptions except for perhaps number being sold or color or width of the tip.
If these were on my site they would all be on the same page. One page to concentrate/conserve the linkjuice. One page to make thicker content. One page to present all of the options to the customer at same time. (PITA to click between lots of pages to make up your mind as a shopper). One page to make maintenance easy.
-
Thanks
-
Yes, I've used this approach for a number of ecommerce clients, and it is very effective. There are many advantages to this approach:
- Eliminating duplicate/thin content across the site
- Focusing link value on a single page instead of spreading out across multiple products
- Less effort creating unique content (one page vs multiple)
- Potentially better user experience
Of course, if you have the resources to write unique content for each of your product pages, that is going to be a better solution. You can still create a landing page in this instance, you just wouldn't canonical the product pages to it.
-
Have you used this approach? If so how effective is it?
-
If you want to rank for "flat head screw driver", the canonical approach can still work. Simply create a landing page for flat head screw drivers, and include all of the flat head screwdriver products from each of the different brands. Then canonical each of the individual product pages up to the main landing page.
-
I have all the usual colour size attributes on my products. I just used that as a simple example. Its more to do with similar non branded products that are different enough to be "products" but not when I have 15 similar it's impossible to write fully different descriptions. Screwdrivers, screws or paint would have been a better example. There are hundreds of ranges like that. If you had five unimportant brands of screwdriver and you had flat head and philips head. Each one is marginally different (handle style etc) but there is no keyword benefit to having each optimised for say "flat head screwdriver". Having a good range is beneficial to the customer but seems to be detrimental to SEO. Is it better to employ writers to make every description different no matter how complex or should I canonical it?
-
Yes, that is a good solution, especially in this post-Panda world. Ideally you would just have one page for Bic pens, with a drop down from which you can select different options such as colors & size. If your shopping cart system doesn't allow you to do that, then the canonical is a good approach. This cuts down on the amount of duplicate content you have and the amount of unique content you need to create.
-
Have a client in the exact same situation. Check to see if you are currently getting traffic for terms that would be specific to having separate pages (e.g. "50 blue bic pens" versus a more general "bic blue pens"). If you don't, then you should canonical to one page. If you do, I'd keep it as is and work on diversifying the product pages more.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Link equity when merging product pages
Hi, our e-commerce website has just over 900 products. A vast majority are very unique and not similar to one another. However, early in our development, we listed similar variations separately. For example, we had a separate product listing for different color options: Black, Tan, and Green. They do not rank too great by themselves. However, the product is very popular and the search volume is near 9k a month. Our competitors have one listing with several color options, which is what we are proposing. We would enable 301 redirects from the Tan and Green options, which would redirect to the new variation listing. Is this wise? We want to capitalize on this opportunity, and apply this practice for other product listings.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AndrewColvin0 -
Paginated Pages Page Depth
Hi Everyone, I was wondering how Google counts the page depth on paginated pages. DeepCrawl is showing our primary pages as being 6+ levels deep, but without the blog or with an infinite scroll on the /blog/ page, I believe it would be only 2 or 3 levels deep. Using Moz's blog as an example, is https://moz.com/blog?page=2 treated to be on the same level in terms of page depth as https://moz.com/blog? If so is it the https://site.comcom/blog" /> and https://site.com/blog?page=3" /> code that helps Google recognize this? Or does Google treat the page depth the same way that DeepCrawl is showing it with the blog posts on page 2 being +1 in page depth compared to the ones on page 1, for example? Thanks, Andy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AndyRSB0 -
Can cross domain canonicals help with international SEO when using ccTLDs?
Hello. My question is:** Can cross domain canonicals help with international SEO when using ccTLDs and a gTLD - and the gTLD is much more authoritative to begin with? ** I appreciate this is a very nuanced subject so below is a detailed explanation of my current approach, problem, and proposed solutions I am considering testing. Thanks for the taking the time to read this far! The Current setup Multiple ccTLD such as mysite.com (US), mysite.fr (FR), mysite.de (DE). Each TLD can have multiple languages - indeed each site has content in English as well as the native language. So mysite.fr (defaults to french) and mysite.fr/en-fr is the same page but in English. Mysite.com is an older and more established domain with existing organic traffic. Each language variant of each domain has a sitemap that is individually submitted to Google Search Console and is linked from the of each page. So: mysite.fr/a-propos (about us) links to mysite.com/sitemap.xml that contains URL blocks for every page of the ccTLD that exists in French. Each of these URL blocks contains hreflang info for that content on every ccTLD in every language (en-us, en-fr, de-de, en-de etc) mysite.fr/en-fr/about-us links to mysite.com/en-fr/sitemap.xml that contains URL blocks for every page of the ccTLD that exists in English. Each of these URL blocks contains hreflang info for that content on every ccTLD in every language (en-us, en-fr, de-de, en-de etc). There is more English content on the site as a whole so the English version of the sitemap is always bigger at the moment. Every page on every site has two lists of links in the footer. The first list is of links to every other ccTLD available so a user can easily switch between the French site and the German site if they should want to. Where possible this links directly to the corresponding piece of content on the alternative ccTLD, where it isn’t possible it just links to the homepage. The second list of links is essentially just links to the same piece of content in the other languages available on that domain. Mysite.com has its international targeting in Google Search console set to the US. The problems The biggest problem is that we didn’t consider properly how we would need to start from scratch with each new ccTLD so although each domain has a reasonable amount of content they only receive a tiny proportion of the traffic that mysite.com achieves. Presumably this is because of a standing start with regards to domain authority. The second problem is that, despite hreflang, mysite.com still outranks the other ccTLDs for brand name keywords. I guess this is understandable given the mismatch of DA. This is based on looking at search results via the Google AdWords Ad Preview tool and changing language, location, and domain. Solutions So the first solution is probably the most obvious and that is to move all the ccTLDs into a subfolder structure on the mysite.com site structure and 301 all the old ccTLD links. This isn’t really an ideal solution for a number of reasons, so I’m trying to explore some alternative possible routes to explore that might help the situation. The first thing that came to mind was to use cross-domain canonicals: Essentially this would be creating locale specific subfolders on mysite.com and duplicating the ccTLD sites in there, but using a cross-domain canonical to tell Google to index the ccTLD url instead of the locale-subfolder url. For example: mysite.com/fr-fr has a canonical of mysite.fr
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | danatello
mysite.com/fr-fr/a-propos has a canonical of mysite.fr/a-propos Then I would change the links in the mysite.com footer so that they wouldn’t point at the ccTLD URL but at the sub-folder URL so that Google would crawl the content on the stronger domain before indexing the ccTLD domain version of the URL. Is this worth exploring with a test, or am I mad for even considering it? The alternative that came to my mind was to do essentially the same thing but use a 301 to redirect from mysite.com/fr-fr to mysite.fr. My question is around whether either of these suggestions might be worth testing, or am I completely barking up the wrong tree and liable to do more harm than good?0 -
How to add Canonical Tags on Opencart Products
Does anyone know how to add canonical tags to product pages in Opencart? Is this possible to do in htaccess? If so, how specifically should it be written in? Please do not post any links to other pages which reference generic canonical information as I've read them all and none help. I'm looking for an Opencart specific answer, or a way to do it in htaccess.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | moon-boots0 -
What is better? No canonical or two canonicals to different pages?
I have a blogger site that is adding parameters and causing duplicate content. For example: www.mysite.com/?spref=bl
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TMI.com
www.mysite.com/?commentPage=1 www.mysite.com/?m=1 www.mysite.com/?m=0 I decided to implement a canonical tag on these pages pointing to the correct version of the page. However, for the parameter ?m=0, the canonical keeps pointing to itself. Ex: www.mysite.com/?m=0 The canonical = www.mysite.com/?m=0 So now I have two canonicals for the same page. My question is if I should leave it, and let Google decide, or completely remove the canonicals from all pages?0 -
Duplicate on page content - Product descriptions - Should I Meta NOINDEX?
Hi, Our e-commerce store has a lot of product descriptions duplicated - Some of them are default manufacturer descriptions, some are descriptions because the colour of the product varies - so essentially the same product, just different colour. It is going to take a lot of man hours to get the unique content in place - would a Meta No INDEX on the dupe pages be ok for the moment and then I can lift that once we have unique content in place? I can't 301 or canonicalize these pages, as they are actually individual products in their own right, just dupe descriptions. Thanks, Ben
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bjs20101 -
Rel Canonical on Home Page
I have a client who says they can't implement a 301 on their home page. They have tow different urls for their home page that are live and do not redirect. I know that the best solution would be to redirect one to the main URL but they say this isn't possible. So they implemented the rel canonical instead. Is this the second best solution for them if they can't redirect? Will the link juice be passed through the rel canonical? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AlightAnalytics0 -
Can obfuscated Javascript be used for too many links on a page?
Hi mozzers Just looking for opinions/answers on if it is ever appropriate to use obfuscated Javascript on links when a page has many links but they need to be there for usability? It seems grey/black hat to me as it shows users something different to Google (alarm bells are sounding already!) BUT if the page has many links it's losing juice which could be saved....... Any thoughts appreciated, thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TrevorJones0